Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing exactly what the response contract contains (parties with source, missing fields, required reading, checklist, model pieces), which is more than the annotations convey. It does not discuss permissions, provenance freshness or limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the payload enumeration and then the usage timing. Every clause carries content and there is no filler, though the long enumerative list makes it denser than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return contract, and it does so thoroughly. Combined with the explicit usage timing and the fully documented input schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the call; only minor details (e.g. failure behavior for unsupported tipoPeca) are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including the enum values and the hint to obtain processoId via buscar_processos. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies even though nothing is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (devolve) and resource (contrato de dados de um tipo de peça num processo) and then enumerates the concrete payload: partes com qualificação e FONTE, campos faltantes, peças essenciais, checklist, preferências de redação e peças-modelo. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like checar_peca, preparar_secao_minuta or listar_pecas without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger and ordering constraint: 'Use no início da redação de uma peça, antes de ler os autos.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.